Sony NEX-7 comparisons and review

Ever since we tested the Sony SLT A77, we’ve been very curious to see how the soon-to-be released Sony NEX 7 would compare. And today we have the answer: as we expected, the absence of a mirror gives the NEX7 some advantages. Below is a detailed look.

The Sony NEX-7 has the same sensor as the Sony A77 and Sony A65, but it’s not a single-lens translucent (SLT) camera — that is, it doesn’t have a partially-translucent mirror — and that makes all the difference, because it doesn’t have to contend with mirror-related light loss. Let’s take a look at how the NEX-7 fares against different kinds of cameras, starting with its Sony SLT relatives.

It’s a tie game among the best of the current APS-C sensors, whose DxOMark scores are all within a hair’s breadth of one another: 81 for the NEX-7, 82 for the K5, and 80 for the D7000.

We applaud the Sony for succeeding in matching its competitors’ image quality scores. This was not a foregone conclusion despite having a significantly higher resolution than either the Pentax and the Nikon, because of its smaller pixel pitch on a sensor of nearly identical surface size.

What’s more, the NEX-7’s minimum ISO of only 100 put it at a disadvantage compared to the K5’s ISO 80, and indeed the NEX-7’s low-light results are noticeably lower than its competitors’ (1016 points vs 1162 and 1165, respectively).

No surprises here: the NEX-7 is by far and away the leader with a DxOMark score of 81 points — 30 points ahead of the Olympus and 27 points ahead of the Nikon. All these cameras are ergonomically similar, compact and lightweight, but the NEX-7’s larger sensor gives it a clear advantage over its rivals.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the NEX-7 is a success in terms of sensor image quality. In light of its current results, it’s hard to resist thinking about the kinds of scores a future “NEX-X” could achieve were it to add ISO 50 to its mirror-free advantage.... and about the kind of score a full-frame DSLR would achieve with the same sensor technology as the Sony NEX 7 or Sony A77.

Further readings for the Sony NEX-7 comparisons and review

To provide photographers with a broader perspective about mobiles, lenses and cameras, here are links to articles, reviews, and analyses of photographic equipment produced by DxOMark, renown websites, magazines or blogs.

We are already acquainted with the D3200: apart from a few ergonomic details, it’s the same camera as the compact and lightweight D3100 SLR, though missing the secondary display on its bridge for even greater compactness. The D3200 weighs only 454 grams (without battery or card). Unlike the D3100, the D3200’s lens is off-center for better balance and the highly practical LiveView/video mode activation tab of the D3100 and the D5100 has disappeared in favor of a more ergonomically mundane video recording button. The D3200 comes with a second (dorsal) infrared sensor to complement its front sensor for more practical infrared remote control. The motor selection tab (single-frame, burst, timer, remote control) is gone as well, again replaced by a direct-access button.

When the Sony A77 was announced a couple of weeks ago as a replacement for the Sony Alpha 700, Sony’s semi-professional APS-C camera, we were all very impressed by its specifications. So we were really excited to see how it would perform in our tests.

Re: Missing Lens

major miss

Ok. 1) In order for one to claim the best lenses for a camera system then order them based on their performances, he must test all native lenses first.How come you guys miss 18-55mm zoom lens that almost all of us owned it before PZ lens was out?We all know 18-55mm zoom gives a better performance than 18-200mm in many ways. Some of us say it is better than PZ 16-50 too. So it would place within the first 3 but yet its not even in the list.2) I would put Rokinon 8mm f2.8 in this list in somewhere on high levels too. It is an e-mount lens.

Hope you will correct your list with the 1) addition. then enrich it with rokinon and dslr magic lenses.

First replies for this comment

Re: major miss

Comparison

I'm surprised that the Sony 50mm outperform the Zeiss 24mm. I'm not convinced this is the case in real world shooting of these two lenses. Although mechanically its probably easier to make a good 50 than a good 24. I was shooting with someone who had the Sony while I was using the Zeiss and I had better light transmission...I don't believe he was using a filter and I was. Regardless, thank you for the above review.

First replies for this comment

Re: Comparison

I am not surprised at all. I use both. 50mm is a better lens. Both on sharpness, low CA and low vignetting. Also it is a OSS lens. 700$ less than Zeiss is the last reason that makes it again better than 24 zeiss.In fact I would vote for sel35 f/1.8 to be again better than 24 zeiss too. I also own this lens. It is significantly smaller than zeiss and costs less than half. Performance of this lens is minimally worse than zeiss that everybody can live with that.

Sony 50mm f1.8 is not as good as Zeiss 24mm f1.8

I've tried two samples of the Sony 50mm f1.8 against the Zeiss / Sony 24mm f1.8 and neither of the Sony's performed as well. My observation is that the Sony at f8 about equals the Zeiss at f4, with the Zeiss having at least a 1.5-stop advantage at wider apertures. From f1.8 to f4, the Zeiss is sharper, with better contrast and lower chromatic aberration. What I see looks a lot closer to what slrgear.com found in their testing of both lenses.

Zeiss touit 12 mm

I must continue to misunderstand !The 20 mm is poor in sharpness as it is a pancake !! I have the sel24f1.8 and i find the 12 mm to be as sharp as the 24.All review i read, and especially the ones coming from "le monde de la photo" and "chasseur d'image" which are famous specialized photography magazines in France, explains the Touit 12 mm to be sharper than the Touit 32 mm Touit. But you give huge different scores between the 32 and the 12 !!So, may be you had a bad sample or it must be a mistake...

Zeiss Touit 12mm : "The two new Touits from ZEISS live up to our expectations. While we’re unable to test these lenses on Fujifilm X-Series cameras currently, the results are likely to be very similar. On the Sony NEX-7, both lenses are very good indeed, excellent even, ..."

And from my point of view has i have both, there is nothing to compare in quality terms between this 2 lenses.

First replies for this comment

Re: Dxo mark score is a joke

Hello,

Thanks for your interest in DxOMark.

Both focal are different. Performing a similar score for a 12mm compared to a 20mm is a pretty good result for the Zeiss Touit.About the 12mm Zeiss Touit, you can check the 12mm comparison http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Publications/DxOMark-Reviews/ZEISS-Touit-2.8-12-and-Touit-1.8-32-Sony-mount-lens-reviews-performance-at-a-price/ZEISS-Touit-2.8-12mm-vs-competitionThere we pointed some weaknesses too such as chromatic aberration for instance.

Re: Sony E 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 kit lens

Other lenses from SLR Magic and Samyang

I mainly take pictures with my SLR Magic Hyperprime 50mm f0.95 and with a Samyang (or in my case called Walimex) 35mm T1.5 (video edition, also available f1.4).The whole Samyang line seems to be faster (there is also a 85mm 1.4 and 24mm 1.4) though a lot bulkier. Would be nice to read a test of one of those lenses.

I like to use some good old Canon FD lenses too like Canon FD 85mm 1.2L, Canon FD 80-200 4L and also, for macro work, Canon FD 50mm 3.5 Macro.Although more difficult to use (manual focus), they produce excellent results with Focus Peaking and Focus zoom help. The zoom optical quality is, for me, on a par with Canon EF 70-200 2.8L IS on a Canon body... without the size and weight! The 85mm provide exceptional OOF blur and Bokeh and also remains quite compact. And the macro, with or without bellow, does a very good job.I also sometimes shoot birds and wildlife with Nex7 + Canon EF400mm 5.6 x1.4 (on a good tripod !). This combo has longer "reach" for almost static subjects than my Canon 1DX with the same lens...

Full Frame Same Sensor Technology?

Your conclusion wonders "about the kind of score a full-frame DSLR would achieve with the same sensor technology as the Sony NEX 7". Is the Nikon D800 exactly that beast? When will you be testing this in comparison?

Pricing

I'm unclear why you list "Indicative price (USD)" as 1720 since this camera lists and sells for 1350 with the kit lens and 1200 without. I noticed you have a similar (though less extreme) discrepancy on the NEX 5N.

First replies for this comment

Re: Wrong picture

What about depth of field?

I love DxO mark reviews but there is one area I remain unenlightened (perhaps in both theory and practice).

My understanding is that lens diffraction will result in loss of detail (resolution) at f-stops higher than a mathematically determined point based on pixel pitch.

If I've got things right an APS-C sensor at 16MP does not suffer diffraction until somewhere between F8 and F11, but at 24MP loss of detail begins somewhere between F5.6 and F8. A FullFrame sensor will, of course, do much better because pixel pitch is larger.

I would *love* to see DxO mark test this. Seems simple (to my possibly challenged little mind), just shoot resolution chart at successive f-stops and record where diffraction kicks-in and limits or reduces resolution. Might be hard to normalize as a number and integrate into overall score, but immensely helpful as a photographer to know for each camera where stopping down begins to trade off not only longer exposure but also loss of detail [probably negating any actual DoF improvement].

I mention this here of course because the Nex-7 vs. Nex5-N is a good place to care [what I really want to know is whether I get equal DoF AND better resolution from the N7, or that (at some F-stop) my equal DoF comes at the price of resolution]. So if I do a lot of high f-stop work to maximize DoF perhaps the Nex-7 doesn't actually give me better resolution? Even more interesting to compare FF to APS-C to get a sense of how much more DoF the FF can capture....

Hope my post isn't too clueless. In any event keep up the terrific work - DxO is a fabulous resource!

First replies for this comment

Re: What about depth of field?

Quote:

In that aspect, the best possible sensor has only one pixel. Thus it does not lose any details regardless of f-stop. Only problem is, it had none details to start with. The same, but for lesser degree, goes for your comparison of 16 MP and 24 MP sensors.

DXomark results already include diffraction, it would be difficult (and meaningless) to exclude it because they measure real lenses.

If you need large DOF, and avoid diffraction limit at same time, TS lenses or TS adaptor result in a improvement. Picture stacking is another way. Pixel size, or sensor size has nothing to do with diffraction because it occurs within lens.

Re: What about depth of field?

Quote:

<div id="linkdxomark">This a comment for <a href="http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Camera-Sensor-Database/Sony/NEX-7">this page on the website</a></div>I love DxO mark reviews but there is one area I remain unenlightened (perhaps in both theory and practice).

My understanding is that lens diffraction will result in loss of detail (resolution) at f-stops higher than a mathematically determined point based on pixel pitch.

If I've got things right an APS-C sensor at 16MP does not suffer diffraction until somewhere between F8 and F11, but at 24MP loss of detail begins somewhere between F5.6 and F8. A FullFrame sensor will, of course, do much better because pixel pitch is larger.

I would *love* to see DxO mark test this. Seems simple (to my possibly challenged little mind), just shoot resolution chart at successive f-stops and record where diffraction kicks-in and limits or reduces resolution. Might be hard to normalize as a number and integrate into overall score, but immensely helpful as a photographer to know for each camera where stopping down begins to trade off not only longer exposure but also loss of detail [probably negating any actual DoF improvement].

I mention this here of course because the Nex-7 vs. Nex5-N is a good place to care [what I really want to know is whether I get equal DoF AND better resolution from the N7, or that (at some F-stop) my equal DoF comes at the price of resolution]. So if I do a lot of high f-stop work to maximize DoF perhaps the Nex-7 doesn't actually give me better resolution? Even more interesting to compare FF to APS-C to get a sense of how much more DoF the FF can capture....

Hope my post isn't too clueless. In any event keep up the terrific work - DxO is a fabulous resource!

Cheers,

Bumpy.

Diffraction is a function of the shape and size of the lens aperture. It's relation to sensors is in terms of size: a smaller sensor has to be magnified more to create an equivalent sized image; thus the circle of confusion is also magnified. As far as I know it's not related to pixel pitch.

Re: What about depth of field?

The circle of least confusion is the smallest spot that a lens can produce. Isn't the circle of least confusion effected by aperture? And doesn't it matter when it exceeds the pixel pitch? I think Bumpy has a good point.

SLT A77 Firmware Update & Next 7

The firmware for the Sony SLT A77 was just upgraded and one of the alleged improvements is better image quality. Since the Sony NEX 7 uses the same sensor as that of the A77, is it safe to assume that Sony will apply the same update to the NEX 7? If so will DXOLabs re-test the camera?

It's impressive to see the IQ of the tiny and convenient NEX-7 be so close to that of my Nikon D3X.